Repository navigation
MINOR: [C++] Remove misleading comment on FileKeyUnwrapper constructor - #40808
Merged
Merged
Conversation
wgtmac
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2024
mapleFU
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2024
pitrou
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2024
|
After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 7 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit dc2c5c6. There were 3 benchmark results indicating a performance regression:
The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 3 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them. |
vibhatha
pushed a commit
to vibhatha/arrow
that referenced
this pull request
May 25, 2024
apache#40808) ### Rationale for this change I added this comment in apache#34181, but from the discussion in apache#40732 (comment), I realised this comment was incorrect. The extra overload appears to just be a convenience as a `FileKeyMaterialStore` is already constructed in `KeyToolkit::RotateMasterKeys`, but the store isn't actually used by the `FileKeyUnwrapper` in that method, as only `FileKeyUnwrapper::GetDataEncryptionKey` is called, which bypasses the store. `RotateMasterKeys` does however rely on the `temp_key_material_store` passed to the `FileKeyWrapper` being used, which is possibly where this confusion came from. ### What changes are included in this PR? Removes an incorrect statement from a C++ header comment. ### Are these changes tested? NA ### Are there any user-facing changes? No Authored-by: Adam Reeve <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rationale for this change
I added this comment in #34181, but from the discussion in #40732 (comment), I realised this comment was incorrect. The extra overload appears to just be a convenience as a
FileKeyMaterialStoreis already constructed inKeyToolkit::RotateMasterKeys, but the store isn't actually used by theFileKeyUnwrapperin that method, as onlyFileKeyUnwrapper::GetDataEncryptionKeyis called, which bypasses the store.RotateMasterKeysdoes however rely on thetemp_key_material_storepassed to theFileKeyWrapperbeing used, which is possibly where this confusion came from.What changes are included in this PR?
Removes an incorrect statement from a C++ header comment.
Are these changes tested?
NA
Are there any user-facing changes?
No